APRIL 12, 2002: At a press conference Det Insp Paul Jennings holds up a card made by Linda's children who are desperate to see their mother againRAZZELL VERDICT: THE five-week trial at Bristol Crown Court, where Glyn Razzell was found guilty of murdering his estranged wife Linda, cost more than £500,000.
During 31 days of frantic evidence and fierce cross-examination Razzell sat attentively in the dock dressed every day in the same grey suit and clean white shirts, sometimes glancing at the public gallery, occasionally raising a smile, but mostly studiously making notes.
He remained cool, calm and collected throughout the proceedings, even when he took to the witness box for three days.
The trial, which had been scheduled to start in July, began shortly after midday in Court No 1 on October 15 under the direction of Judge Christopher Pitchers.
Barrister Michael Parroy QC outlined the prosecution case and told the jury of seven men and five women that they would hear strong evidence that former investment market manager Glyn Razzell, 44, killed his wife.
Summing up he told the jury: "We have no explanation at all how that blood got into that car on that day when that man had the keys. Mr Razzell planned his wife's death as he plans everything in his life.
"He carried out his plan and Mrs Razzell is dead. Far from going off for a nice life with Rachel Smith as planned, he now faces this charge.
"We would suggest when you look at the totality of the evidence in this case there is only one answer he did it and we would invite you to return a guilty verdict."
He painted a picture of a man motivated by money, a chess player, control freak, planner. A man who paid meticulous attention to detail and someone who was more than capable of cold blooded murder.
Mr Parroy told the court Mr and Mrs Razzell were embroiled in divorce proceedings when she vanished on Tuesday, March 19 last year.
Swindon County Court had indicated Linda would receive the marital home in Pentylands Close, Highworth, and a lump sum of around £30,000, which would enable her to sell the house and buy another one, mortgage free.
The court was told Razzell lost his job with Zurich Financial Services in December 2001 and received a £68,000 redundancy payout. He failed to disclose this to Linda's solicitors to prevent her claiming a share and instead splashed out on a £7,500 round-the-world holiday for him and his lover, Rachel Smith.
When Linda's solicitors found out they obtained a court order freezing Razzell's bank account days later Linda vanished.
Razzell had planned to go on a booze cruise with friends on the day Linda disappeared, but instead said he had to stay behind to try and fix his frozen bank account.
However, he still swapped cars with his friends he borrowed William Sutcliffe's silver Renault Laguna, while he in turn loaned his Ford Galaxy for the French trip.
Mr Parroy said forensic scientists discovered Linda's splattered blood in the boot of the car and in the front passenger footwell. He suggested Razzell had waited for Linda, who parked her car in Alvescot Road, Old Walcot, abducted her in an alleyway, and placed her either dead or dying in the boot of the car before disposing of the body.
Traces of Razzell's blood were found on the driver's seatbelt, but he told the court that while he could not explain how his estranged wife's blood came to be in the car, his blood was the result of him scratching an itchy leg and then pulling the seatbelt.
The court was told tests showed there was a one in a billion chance of the blood in the car not belonging to Linda and that it was there by being coughed up, dropped or from a bloody object.
"A bleeding Mrs Razzell was in the boot of that car either alive or dead, but bleeding. Mrs Razzell was an utterly devoted mother, not somebody who would ever voluntarily abandon her family. Forensic evidence together with other supporting evidence shows she has been killed and she has been killed by this defendant," said Mr Parroy.
Witnesses, including Linda's cousin, Julie Westmore, told how Linda adored her four children, Catherine, Matthew, Emma and Robin. Fighting back tears she said: "She worshipped her children and would never, ever leave them."
Linda was not suffering from mental problems at the time, had embarked on a new relationship and could finally see the light at the end of the tunnel in respect of her divorce, the court heard.
During the trial, which was attended every day by Linda's brothers, Graham and Neil Davies, Mrs Westmore, her sister, Beverly Lewis and Razzell's cousin, Patricia Hubbard, the court heard that Razzell had even joked to six friends about "bumping Linda off", discussed the financial pros and cons of her being dead and made remarks about disposing of a body in quicksand at the Cotswold Water Park near South Cerney.
Giving evidence, Razzell's friend and the owner of the silver Renault Laguna, William Sutcliffe, said Razzell had made the comment not long after Linda went missing.
He also said his former work colleague had made a comment about whether police had been to Sapperton Tunnel to look for a body.
Razzell, who always denied murder, said he could account for his movements the day his estranged wife disappeared. He said he had driven to Sainsbury's at Bridgemead to fill the Laguna up with petrol at around 8am. Then he had gone for a two-and-a-half-hour walk around Lydiard Park and retuned home for a bath and some lunch.
In the afternoon he said he went to sign an affidavit at his solicitors in Swindon, drove to Barbury Castle for a walk and some fresh air, had dinner with his girlfriend at the Red Lion in Avebury, drove to Membury Services and then on to a pub near Hungerford to meet his returning friends.
The prosecution poured cold water on Razzell's claim that he was at Lydiard Park by calling teachers, classroom assistants and parents of children at Nythe Primary School who were there on the same day. None of them remembered seeing him.
During a particularly fraught exchange between Razzell and Mr Parroy the prosecution barrister said: "I suggest you killed your wife for the two oldest reasons there are money and a younger women who you were in love with. That's right isn't it?" But Razzell simply said: "No, that is not right."
The notion Linda, a part-time learning support assistant at Swindon College, was alive and well was rubbished as compete nonsense by Mr Parroy, who said she would have to be prepared to give herself a life sentence in the shadows away from the four children she adored. But Razzell told the court it was possible and his estranged wife was more than capable of faking her disappearance.
Speaking in the witness box, he said: "I don't believe it is complete nonsense I think it is a possibility."
Mr Parroy introduced a Mr X as an alternative candidate to Razzell, but said nobody else fitted the bill. Her killer would have to have had knowledge of her routine, access to the Laguna, a reason for her to be killed and accept that Razzell would probably take the blame. "There could be no other person", he told the jury.
But defence witnesses claimed they saw Linda alive and well in Weston-super-Mare and in a caf in Carmarthenshire.
According to three witnesses she was seen walking along the promenade, visiting a day centre and trying to a book a room at a guesthouse. One man believed he had served her a cup of tea at his caf in Pendine Sands.
Razzell's defence barrister, Stewart Jones QC, said the prosecution had tried to conjure up a far-fetched and fictional account of what had happened based on surmise and not evidence.
He told the jury: "Far from being certain that she is dead you may conclude that it looks otherwise. The body of evidence concerning the alleyway simply doesn't support the case the crown presents about an abduction and violent attack taking place."
He said evidence was conspicuous by its absence and suggested Razzell should be found not guilty.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article